• finley@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    3 months ago

    I came here to comment on this exact thing. Not only is it a bad painting, but the bad art aspect transcends the painting itself, even to the execution as a triptych. Every aspect of this is terrible.

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      3 months ago

      The fact that it also kinda follows the rule of thirds makes it even more bizarre. They took the character of interest (Trump) and split him in half between the two panels, but left the cock and balls at another point of tension, implying some sort of sexual tension between the figures?

      As they say, it buggers belief.

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        what buggers belief is that you were able to look at it long enough for that level of critique. brava.

        edit: there are some weird, linear intersections and balance-counterbalances that keep drawing the eye here-there-and-everywhere, but i can’t seem to figure out the point of any of it. neither could the artist, it seems. it’s dizzying to look at.

      • Magnergy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        The one upside I see is that you can swap out the middle and right thirds as needed to change the good and bad politicians when Oceania changes to always have been at war with Eastasia.

    • stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think it’s just because that particular Joan Fabrics didn’t have a single canvas that was big enough on the Wednesday afternoon that the artist’s clinical manic episode compelled her to produce this.